I have always thought of it as having one hand behind your back as you fight, a very classic way of dueling. Since a Shield does not count as a weapon, Does it effect it in any way?
No, a shield does not cancel out the dueling fighting style. That fighting style doesn't even contain the word "shield" in any capacity, so there is no reason to thing it has anything to do with shields.
Wield a melee weapon in one hand, and no other weapons (not with your prehensile tail, in your teeth, as a hat, etc.) and you get some bonus damage. End of the list of things to consider.
And if it thematically bothers you, as there are no shield 'sizes' in 5e, it allows a archetypal dexterous dueller to wear a buckler and still take the style.
Of course, it still applies to the plate armoured sword-and-board types too.
I have a vengeance pally that is frankly too powerful compared to the rest of the group ...................................................................... since everyone else is more about RP than single-handedly killing an Allip in one round of combat burning all his spell slots with a crit and magic sword he stole from a teammate that it was intended for.
The gelatinous cube coming his way next session may fix a lot of my issues.
If the rest of the group are OK with the Pally being a combat powerhouse, why change anything? He is having fun, they are having fun....
"magic sword he stole from a teammate that it was intended for....." I personally believe this is a mistake that a lot of DMs make (myself included.) It's not the DM's job to assign items to individual players*. The DM places rewards and the players decide what to do with them. A magical sword, although it may balance 2 pcs, is generally of more use in the hands of the person most proficient in wielding it. The players are making a sound tactical decision to allow the Paladin to wield it.
So he can kill an allip in one round (with luck)? Put a second allip in the encounter.
Weakening every ability that the class has is just mean; if the players are having fun, you're doing a good job.
@TexasDevin: "If it doesn’t say you can’t wear a shield, then there’s no reason to think you can’t wear a shield."
While technically true..... As a long-time fencing instructor, the dueling fighting style initially conjures images of the classic hand behind the back style, but the picture above is just as relevant. The important thing to consider though is that the off hand is used when fighting "one-handed" in much the same way that when a martial artist throws a punch, he uses both arms (and legs, hips, waist....), so it is a valid line of thought to briefly pursue.
As the OP suspected, and we all seem to agree, the shield use is fine, but ruling otherwise can still be justified. I just wouldn't in our game.
When I think of dueling, my initial thought is a couple samurai standing across a field from each other. You imagine two European-style fencers. Someone else may imagine Achilles and Hector with sword, spear, and shield. I'm not wrong. You're not wrong. They're not wrong. It's all about what you imagine when you think of dueling.
I think it's pretty cool that you're into D&D and also into real-life sword study.
I bet a lot of people on here are involved in "real life" combat stuff. Never pick on a convention nerd - you never know what "specific skill sets" they may have picked up!
To be fair, if you mention duelling, I think of "That famous duel on Boston Common...." where Connor McCloud keeps getting up after being shot. I can't think if any of the "Highlander" duels between the actual immortals used a shield...ah well, time to watch it again!
(Interesting fact, in 1987 I taught Connor McCloud to fence. Not THAT Connor McCloud, but a Connor McCloud. :) )
If I were to disallow the use of a shield in duelling style, I would possibly allow the use of a bonus action to gain advantage on an attack, or something similar; fencing is an "academic sport" and more hits are scored by deception than speed. Or maybe impose disadvantage on a single attack against the fencer. The word does come from defense, after all!
But to be honest, anyone who brings a foil to a swordfight deserves to get cut to ribbons - in real life I would be sword & board all the way - and not one of those poncy bucklers either! If the Zombie Apocalypse ever comes, then I want a Katana! (Not the best choice, but at least I'll look good!)
As you imply - it's all about what works for you.
Hmm we seem to have wandered off thread - vever mind, it was pretty much answered already. :)
If the zombie apocalypse comes, it's about situational equipment - full plate with a poleaxe would be amazing as a horde-breaker, though it would have to be proper fluted gothic to ensure no bite wounds, right? :)
If the zombie apocalypse comes, it's about situational equipment - full plate with a poleaxe would be amazing as a horde-breaker, though it would have to be proper fluted gothic to ensure no bite wounds, right? :)
(also has some fairly specific nerd skills)
If you go full plate, then I think a smaller weapon will also be required for those times when the hoard drags you down. Cesti, triangular punch dagger, or Magnum .44 (yeah there are better guns, but nothing so iconic.)
Also, I shall remember those specific nerd skills next time I am tempted to post something controversial. :D
Oooh, "fluted gothic." Just saying it sends a shiver down the spine...
I don't think people should get so hung up on the image "dueling" creates in a particular person's mind.
The point of the rule is that if you're not two weapon fighting or two handing a weapon, characters with this ability can get +2 to min damage. Shields or no shields.
yo no le veo la lógica; los estilos están sacados de la edición de segunda edición, advanced D&D, y el estilo se llamaba: estilo a una mano, con una espada a una mano y la otra mano libre. Querer ponerle escudo porque no lo pone en las reglas a mi parecer es desvirtuar el estilo, pero adelante cada master toma las reglas y las usa a su gusto según su mesa.
yo no le veo la lógica; los estilos están sacados de la edición de segunda edición, advanced D&D, y el estilo se llamaba: estilo a una mano, con una espada a una mano y la otra mano libre. Querer ponerle escudo porque no lo pone en las reglas a mi parecer es desvirtuar el estilo, pero adelante cada master toma las reglas y las usa a su gusto según su mesa.
The AD&D 2nd edition Fighting Style specialization was not called One Handed Fighting Style but Single-Weapon Fighting Style and it was specifically said it was for when ''the character wields a weapon in one hand and carries nothing in the other hand.''
The Dueling Fighting Style on the other hand doesn't mention that, It instead say it's used ''when you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons'' so it's not a distortion in any way to assume that it allowed to wields any non-weaon item in the other hand.
There is even a Sage Advice Compendium Q&A on this rule interaction;
Is the Dueling fighting style intended to support a shield? Yes. A character with the Dueling option usually pairs a one-handed weapon with a shield, a spellcasting focus, or a free hand
I think some of the confusion may come in whether or not you consider a shield a weapon. D&D 5E generally doesn't consider shields to be weapons, even with Shield Master it only allows you to shove people with your shield.
But I contend that anyone that doesn't consider a shield a weapon just hasn't been hit by one hard enough.
The wording for the 2024 Dueling Fighting Style Feat is the same to the 2014 version, so the SAC entry posted by @Plaguescarred --- many months ago --- should still apply.
But even without that clarification, the feat / style already seemed clear to me.
I have always thought of it as having one hand behind your back as you fight, a very classic way of dueling. Since a Shield does not count as a weapon, Does it effect it in any way?
No, a shield does not cancel out the dueling fighting style. That fighting style doesn't even contain the word "shield" in any capacity, so there is no reason to thing it has anything to do with shields.
Wield a melee weapon in one hand, and no other weapons (not with your prehensile tail, in your teeth, as a hat, etc.) and you get some bonus damage. End of the list of things to consider.
Thank you! This is the answer i knew was coming but i needed it from someone else.
It's specifically called out as viable and intended.
While a DM could make it not work, it's explicitly intended to work together.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sageadvice.eu/2016/06/23/can-a-fighter-use-a-shield-while-using-dueling/amp/
If it doesn’t say you can’t wear a shield, then there’s no reason to think you can’t wear a shield.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
And if it thematically bothers you, as there are no shield 'sizes' in 5e, it allows a archetypal dexterous dueller to wear a buckler and still take the style.
Of course, it still applies to the plate armoured sword-and-board types too.
If the rest of the group are OK with the Pally being a combat powerhouse, why change anything? He is having fun, they are having fun....
"magic sword he stole from a teammate that it was intended for....." I personally believe this is a mistake that a lot of DMs make (myself included.) It's not the DM's job to assign items to individual players*. The DM places rewards and the players decide what to do with them. A magical sword, although it may balance 2 pcs, is generally of more use in the hands of the person most proficient in wielding it. The players are making a sound tactical decision to allow the Paladin to wield it.
So he can kill an allip in one round (with luck)?
Put a second allip in the encounter.
Weakening every ability that the class has is just mean; if the players are having fun, you're doing a good job.
@TexasDevin: "If it doesn’t say you can’t wear a shield, then there’s no reason to think you can’t wear a shield."
While technically true.....
As a long-time fencing instructor, the dueling fighting style initially conjures images of the classic hand behind the back style, but the picture above is just as relevant. The important thing to consider though is that the off hand is used when fighting "one-handed" in much the same way that when a martial artist throws a punch, he uses both arms (and legs, hips, waist....), so it is a valid line of thought to briefly pursue.
As the OP suspected, and we all seem to agree, the shield use is fine, but ruling otherwise can still be justified.
I just wouldn't in our game.
*Except when it is! :)
Roleplaying since Runequest.
When I think of dueling, my initial thought is a couple samurai standing across a field from each other. You imagine two European-style fencers. Someone else may imagine Achilles and Hector with sword, spear, and shield. I'm not wrong. You're not wrong. They're not wrong. It's all about what you imagine when you think of dueling.
I think it's pretty cool that you're into D&D and also into real-life sword study.
"Not all those who wander are lost"
I bet a lot of people on here are involved in "real life" combat stuff.
Never pick on a convention nerd - you never know what "specific skill sets" they may have picked up!
To be fair, if you mention duelling, I think of "That famous duel on Boston Common...." where Connor McCloud keeps getting up after being shot. I can't think if any of the "Highlander" duels between the actual immortals used a shield...ah well, time to watch it again!
(Interesting fact, in 1987 I taught Connor McCloud to fence. Not THAT Connor McCloud, but a Connor McCloud. :) )
If I were to disallow the use of a shield in duelling style, I would possibly allow the use of a bonus action to gain advantage on an attack, or something similar; fencing is an "academic sport" and more hits are scored by deception than speed. Or maybe impose disadvantage on a single attack against the fencer. The word does come from defense, after all!
But to be honest, anyone who brings a foil to a swordfight deserves to get cut to ribbons - in real life I would be sword & board all the way - and not one of those poncy bucklers either!
If the Zombie Apocalypse ever comes, then I want a Katana! (Not the best choice, but at least I'll look good!)
As you imply - it's all about what works for you.
Hmm we seem to have wandered off thread - vever mind, it was pretty much answered already. :)
Roleplaying since Runequest.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersIf the zombie apocalypse comes, it's about situational equipment - full plate with a poleaxe would be amazing as a horde-breaker, though it would have to be proper fluted gothic to ensure no bite wounds, right? :)
(also has some fairly specific nerd skills)
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
If you go full plate, then I think a smaller weapon will also be required for those times when the hoard drags you down. Cesti, triangular punch dagger, or Magnum .44 (yeah there are better guns, but nothing so iconic.)
Also, I shall remember those specific nerd skills next time I am tempted to post something controversial. :D
Oooh, "fluted gothic." Just saying it sends a shiver down the spine...
Roleplaying since Runequest.
While I find some of the tangents here amusing...
I don't think people should get so hung up on the image "dueling" creates in a particular person's mind.
The point of the rule is that if you're not two weapon fighting or two handing a weapon, characters with this ability can get +2 to min damage.
Shields or no shields.
The rules are there to serve our imaginations.
Roleplaying since Runequest.
If the zombie apocalypse comes, I have the best martial art of all—I can run for a very long time.
Who am I kidding? I live in a city of two million people. I’m hosed! Medieval societies were so much better suited for zombies than we moderns are.
EDIT: and that’s the last I’ll say on this tangent. 😂
"Not all those who wander are lost"
yo no le veo la lógica; los estilos están sacados de la edición de segunda edición, advanced D&D, y el estilo se llamaba: estilo a una mano, con una espada a una mano y la otra mano libre. Querer ponerle escudo porque no lo pone en las reglas a mi parecer es desvirtuar el estilo, pero adelante cada master toma las reglas y las usa a su gusto según su mesa.
The AD&D 2nd edition Fighting Style specialization was not called One Handed Fighting Style but Single-Weapon Fighting Style and it was specifically said it was for when ''the character wields a weapon in one hand and carries nothing in the other hand.''
The Dueling Fighting Style on the other hand doesn't mention that, It instead say it's used ''when you are wielding a melee weapon in one hand and no other weapons'' so it's not a distortion in any way to assume that it allowed to wields any non-weaon item in the other hand.
There is even a Sage Advice Compendium Q&A on this rule interaction;
I think some of the confusion may come in whether or not you consider a shield a weapon.
D&D 5E generally doesn't consider shields to be weapons, even with Shield Master it only allows you to shove people with your shield.
But I contend that anyone that doesn't consider a shield a weapon just hasn't been hit by one hard enough.
The wording for the 2024 Dueling Fighting Style Feat is the same to the 2014 version, so the SAC entry posted by @Plaguescarred --- many months ago --- should still apply.
But even without that clarification, the feat / style already seemed clear to me.